3 ms·
Well, let's not forget we're talking about lawyers here, who already work with a versioned single source of truth (The Law). All I'm asking is that we upgrade
by moe 11y ago
Well, let's not forget we're talking about lawyers here,
who already work with a versioned single source of truth (The Law).
All I'm asking is that we upgrade their tooling and process.
Your outlook for the abstraction potential seems overly pessimistic.
Most of Law boils down to a cascade of intermingled conditionals,
nothing a computer couldn't handle.
Of course a bit of human intervention will always be required, for value judgements and the "hard questions".
However, in my (limited) experience with lawyers,
very little of the time and money that a lawsuit consumes
goes into the actual decision making.
The overwhelming majority is wasted on process and formalities.
- reagency 11y agoThere is no single source of truth. Every court case creates a new version of kaw, called case law.
- moe 11y agoWell, the body of this case law (and all other laws) is what I refer to as "single source of truth". Yes, "single source" is very much an euphemism. In practice it's far from a single source, but rather a poorly synchronized mess. Which is exactly what I'm proposing to fix. If we were to wrap it into a github-style model then cases could be represented as branches. Case-law would evolve in the form of patches and pull-requests.